Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Seashells on tops of mountains.
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 343 (635829)
10-02-2011 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by RAZD
10-02-2011 2:00 AM


Re: Catastrophic
***Rambling deleted***
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 2:00 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 343 (635830)
10-02-2011 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Dr Adequate
10-01-2011 9:19 AM


Re: Catastrophic
Dr Adequate writes:
chuck writes:
Couldn't the time it took to form the mountains, while in the process of going upward with all of the catastophic events going on have accumulated/incorporated all that marine life thoughtout the mountains while forming?
That's not very detailed. How do you envisage this happening?
My question is not very detailed? Im sorry but it wasn't mean to be very detailed. It's Just a question.
How do I envisage my question being more detailed?
The next time I ask a simple question I will add more detail than is apperantly needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2011 9:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2011 12:59 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 343 (635831)
10-02-2011 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Theodoric
10-01-2011 10:04 AM


Re: Chuck needs to learn what evidence is
Theodoric writes:
The evidence that can be presented here is usually websites.
Hmmm. I wonder if the members here feel insulted by that. I know I would. Moose, Dr A, Coyote, Pressie, roxrkool...
You think they "usually" just use websites...ok. No education? No learned knowledge? No hands on work? No memory, to name a few...Alright, if you say so. I wonder how they feel.
Im, not gonna argue with you.
So you are agreeing with me then on my post to Coyote? Great bro. thanks for the support.
Cherrio...
Theodoric writes:
Chuck needs to learn what evidence is
Cool man, websites it is
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2011 10:04 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Theodoric, posted 10-02-2011 8:33 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 246 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 8:42 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 251 by Pressie, posted 10-03-2011 6:55 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 244 of 343 (635839)
10-02-2011 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Coyote
10-01-2011 9:35 AM


Re: Coyote using an entire quote from a website for a rebuttle
My commment wasn't meant to insult your intelligence in any way. Just how you choose to present that comment. I should have overlooked it as im 100 times more guilty than you in doing that.
Sorry for making a big deal out of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Coyote, posted 10-01-2011 9:35 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 245 of 343 (635851)
10-02-2011 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Chuck77
10-02-2011 4:05 AM


The great misrepresentation
Hmmm. I wonder if the members here feel insulted by that. I know I would. Moose, Dr A, Coyote, Pressie, roxrkool...
You think they "usually" just use websites...ok. No education? No learned knowledge? No hands on work? No memory, to name a few...Alright, if you say so. I wonder how they feel.
Are you fucking serious? You are going to misquote me this much and you are a Mod. What a joke.
This is a complete misrepresentation of what I said.
Of course we use learned knowledge, education etc.. But unless there is something to back that up all it is is assertion. AS this is the internet and not an in person debate, it is easier to provide information from websites. Websites include, pages from books, scholarly journals, independent websites that reference scholarly sources etc.
Again this reaffirms my statement earlier that as a fundy you accept personal testimony much more than cold hard facts.
So you are agreeing with me then on my post to Coyote? Great bro. thanks for the support.
No idea how you could reasonably come to this conclusion.
Cool man, websites it is
It burns.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Chuck77, posted 10-02-2011 4:05 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 246 of 343 (635853)
10-02-2011 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Chuck77
10-02-2011 4:05 AM


the issue is "lengthy cut-n-pastes" with no summary, not whether it is evidence
Hi Chuck77
You think they "usually" just use websites...ok. No education? No learned knowledge? No hands on work? No memory, to name a few...Alright, if you say so. I wonder how they feel.
To let you know, I think you were right in intent, but didn't formulate the issue quite precisely. You are right that we should not be throwing website material back and forth with no additional input, it's not very different from posting bare links. Here's what the forum guidelines say:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
  2. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
We have had several creationists post large tracts of copy and paste from creationist websites with no commentary, and the lack of commentary is the issue.
When creationists do it, they have been told "we don't debate websites, select the argument that you think is best supported, that you agree with, and that you can argue for, and present it in your own words to debate"
Now this is an excellent bit of advice for everyone: first, if you can't paraphrase a comment or statement then you don't really understand it; second it makes you focus on an argument that you can support outside the quoted article; third it makes you consider having additional arguments to reinforce the issue you select.
So you are agreeing with me then on my post to Coyote? Great bro. thanks for the support.
When it comes to Coyote, she is a professional archeologist and can certainly argue for and support any article or issue in archeology, so if challenged with the above comment would have been able to do so, in spades (), but probably just felt it was unjustified.
When it comes to posts about archeology and related items like 14C and other dating methods, findings in archeology, etc. I love to read her posts, as I can usually learn something from them.
Re: Chuck needs to learn what evidence is
So the issue is not about the evidence in the post, but the fact that it was presented with no commentary or summation.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Chuck77, posted 10-02-2011 4:05 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 247 of 343 (635855)
10-02-2011 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Chuck77
10-02-2011 2:15 AM


Re: Catastrophic - but what's in the book\narrative?
Hi again Chuck77
So what "catastrophic events" were involved? Chapter and verse?
Im gonna speculate that this is one:
KJV-Genesis7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
I just a hypothesis RAZD. Probably not even that. I can probably find some more but im not gonna bog down the thread with verses.
My point here, is that the only "catastrophe" mentioned is flooding, not volcanoes, not earthquakes, so any argument that would incorporate those events into a WWF event is making an interpretation that is not justified by the narrative.
http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/genesis/
quote:
7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
No mention of anything but water rising (fountains broken open) and rain falling (sky opened).
Doesn't even say there was a violent storm with strong winds, just a lot of rain.
So I agree with ICANT that there doesn't need to be an effect that would be noticed in the archeological record.
If there was a world wide flood there would have to be more than just some rain falling for 40 days and nights I think.
It would have to be a heavy rain to reach the level in the narrative by rain alone, but we also have opened fountains of the deep, so that isn't necessarily needed.
(same link)
quote:
7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
No mention of storm conditions or winds or earthquakes or volcanoes ... and many mountains are higher than 15 cubits(1).
So here's another interpretation to consider: IF god caused the red sea to part for Moses, THEN he could have done similar for Noah. Thus he could have 'pushed' the water to just flow uphill from the seas (fountains of the deep), and over the land ("waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth") to the depth of 15 cubits everywhere by the same magic\control used when parting the red sea for Moses. There is enough water in the seas, now, to do this with plenty left over.
It's a matter of interpretation of what the bible says, more than it is a matter of how the earth was affected by the flood, imho, and interpretation is subject to human error, yes?
(same link)
quote:
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
To my mind, this section is rather explicit in describing a massive mass extinction event, with all living things reduced to just the people, animals, etc inside the ark surviving. Thus there needs to be a mass extinction AND a massive (genetic and phylogenetic) bottleneck in all living things in all species at the same time. The evidence just does not show this extent of extinction to all species at one specific point in time. Sorry.
Now I need to go buy some coffee ... I just drank my last cup. Catch you later, dude.
Enjoy

Notes:
(1) -
Cubit - Wikipedia
Quote: "The Egyptian hieroglyph for the cubit shows the symbol of a forearm. The Egyptian cubit was subdivided into 7 palms of 4 digits each; surviving cubit rods are between 52.3 and 52.9 cm in length.[1]"
The Egyptian cubit is normally considered the one used in the bible IIRC, so this is 0.526 meters long or 20.7 inches, and 15 cubits would be 25.9 feet deep.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Chuck77, posted 10-02-2011 2:15 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(5)
Message 248 of 343 (635866)
10-02-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Chuck77
10-02-2011 1:58 AM


Re: Catastrophic
If you want to learn about geology, then read geology textbooks. In college, we start out easy taking Historical Geology courses and ones on petrology and mineralogy. Don't start out reading Creationist propaganda written mostly by people who do not really know much about geology or who have an ideological agenda. They write little blurbs here and there about specific topics that can be taken out of context and twisted to suit their own needs. And they know that people like you, ignorant of even the most basic geology and science, will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Creationists will often accuse non-Creationists of bias and having their own atheistic agenda. False. In truth, geologists, like the rest of the general population, could not care less about the religious implications of their work. Yes, many of us are atheists, but we don't have time to sit around coming up with ways to ruin Christianity. We are nerds. We don't care about religion. We sit around arguing whether skarn is a rock or an alteration and how it should be coded it in our models.
Something to consider... who makes money off geology? Professional geologists. We do not EVER use 'Creationist geology' to find economic deposits of oil, gas, or minerals. We use traditional, old earth geology because it works and it makes us billions of dollars. We use ancient depositional systems and tectonic terranes to guide us in finding the next major gold deposit, not Flood Geology.
So if you found yourself in a position of having to find a rare earth deposit in order to save your country (you are the leader of a small country!), who would you choose to help you do it --- a team of Creationists or a team of professional economic geologists with proven records of finding other RE deposits?
That should answer your question as to who you should listen to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Chuck77, posted 10-02-2011 1:58 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 249 of 343 (635868)
10-02-2011 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Chuck77
10-02-2011 3:54 AM


Re: Catastrophic
My question is not very detailed? Im sorry but it wasn't mean to be very detailed. It's Just a question.
How do I envisage my question being more detailed?
The next time I ask a simple question I will add more detail than is apperantly needed.
Well then, as it stands, your question is: could there be ... some sort of mechanism ... which would allow you to reconcile flood geology with this fact about geology.
In which case the best answer I can give is that I can't think of one and nor apparently can you.
If you could propose some mechanism in particular then we could think about whether it would work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Chuck77, posted 10-02-2011 3:54 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(2)
Message 250 of 343 (635919)
10-03-2011 12:38 AM


Perhaps it should be pointed out again, for the benefit of Chuck77, that the seashells in question are not "on top of mountains", but rather IN the mountain tops. It should also be noted that none of the species represented are currently extant. Moreover, many of the species represented are Ammonites, an extinct subclass of the Cephalopoda. The youngest example of an Ammonite fossil has been reliably dated to 65.5 million years. That's about 10 million years before the Indian tectonic plate collided with the Asian plate and scraped up the bottom of the Tethys Sea to the top of the Himalayas. Thus, 10 million year old fossils were scraped up some 7 miles, from the bottom of a sea to the top of the Himalayas. And yet, creationists would have us believe that this happened in a single year.

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 251 of 343 (635940)
10-03-2011 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Chuck77
10-02-2011 4:05 AM


Re: Chuck needs to learn what evidence is
Theodoric writes:
The evidence that can be presented here is usually websites.
Chuck77 writes:
Hmmm. I wonder if the members here feel insulted by that. I know I would. Moose, Dr A, Coyote, Pressie, roxrkool...
Did you mention my name?
Why would I be insulted by that? The evidence that can be presented here usually is on websites. It's a fact. It's also very limited. That's because scientific research, peer-review and publication is normally (read virtually every time) communicated in articles that don't appear on websites. That's also why creationists usually don't have a clue what happens in the scientific community.
If you want evidence, try peer-reviewed scientific literature. Not websites. For geology, try the peer-reviewed scientific journal called the South African Jornal of Geology, http://sajg.geoscienceworld.org/misc/about.dtl.
That's science. It doesn't appear on websites. It is distributed, bought and read by peers who know enough about the subject, who are qualified and can critique the work meaningfully and sufficiently. That's how scientific concensus is obtained.
South African Journal of geology writes:
The South African Journal of Geology (SAJG) is the peer-reviewed journal of the Geological Society of South Africa (GSSA). The SAJG was first published by the GSSA in 1895 as the Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa, and then as the SAJG beginning in 1987 (vol. 87). The SAJG publishes scientific papers, notes, and discussions in the broadly defined fields of geoscience that are related to the geology of Africa. Contributions relevant to supercontinental entities such as Pangaea and Gondwana are also welcome as are topical studies on any geoscience-related discipline.
Production, publication, and distribution of the South African Journal of Geology (SAJG) are managed by the Geological Society of South Africa (GSSA). The SAJG is indexed/abstracted in a number of reference works, including CAB International, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, Geo Abstracts, IBZ, IBR, Mineralogical Abstracts, Current Contents, Research Alert, and Scisearch.
For more information about the South African Journal of Geology, visit the About SAJG webpage, or visit GSSA Home for more information about the Society.
If you want something on pseudeo-science, try the creationists website sources. They're always and mostly exclusively on the internet and in churches, and as has been showed to you; they alwys tell porkies. Always. They pretend to be "scientific", while they are anti-science. They pretend to be "scientific": they're not. They pretend to be peer-reviewed: they're not. They tell porkies. That's it.
In scientific literature, porkies are pointed out. Quickly. Not to be repeated. On the internet, porkies are repeated again and again. That's why creationists flourish on the internet. That's also why porkies are all creationists have. They've got nothing else.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : Added a few sentences
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Chuck77, posted 10-02-2011 4:05 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 10-03-2011 9:19 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 252 of 343 (635944)
10-03-2011 7:50 AM


This is one thing I would like to know from creationists: why do we find sea shells both "on top" and in some mountains, but no sea shells either "on top" or within other mountains?
Did the "global flood" miss those mountains with no sea shells? How does a global flood explain all those "shell-free" mountains? Just missed by the "flood"?

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by pandion, posted 10-04-2011 1:41 AM Pressie has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 253 of 343 (635955)
10-03-2011 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Pressie
10-03-2011 6:55 AM


Re: Chuck needs to learn what evidence is
Pressie writes:
If you want evidence, try peer-reviewed scientific literature. Not websites. For geology, try the peer-reviewed scientific journal called the South African Jornal of Geology, http://sajg.geoscienceworld.org/misc/about.dtl.
That's science. It doesn't appear on websites. It is distributed, bought and read by peers who know enough about the subject, who are qualified and can critique the work meaningfully and sufficiently. That's how scientific concensus is obtained.
Another way of looking at it is that while there are many websites that accurately present the current state of scientific knowledge, if you want the original data from which this knowledge is distilled then you often have to go to the technical literature. Websites often present what we know without explaining how we know it. This is a general tendency that Dr Adequate is attempting to avoid in his Introduction To Geology thread.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix incorrect attribution.
Edited by Percy, : Fix incorrect punctuation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Pressie, posted 10-03-2011 6:55 AM Pressie has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(1)
Message 254 of 343 (636105)
10-04-2011 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Pressie
10-03-2011 7:50 AM


quote:
This is one thing I would like to know from creationists: why do we find sea shells both "on top" and in some mountains, but no sea shells either "on top" or within other mountains?
Did the "global flood" miss those mountains with no sea shells? How does a global flood explain all those "shell-free" mountains? Just missed by the "flood"?
What an excellent question! Creationists believe that a great FLUD washed sea creatures up from the bottom of the sea to the tops of mountains, and somehow embedded them inside the mountains. What a display of ignorance of the principles of science. Floods do not wash things up - floods wash things down.
I grew up surrounded by mountain ranges and spent lots of time in those mountains as a student biologist. From a hill outside of town I could see the snow capped peaks of five different mountain ranges in July (Pryor (8,822 ft.), Crazy (11,214 ft.), Beartooth (12,807 ft.), Absaroka (13,153 ft.), and Bighorn (13,167 ft.)). As far as I know, no sea shells have ever been found in or on any of these ranges. Compare that with the Himalayas. Wikipedia lists 13 peaks that are twice as high as the highest peak of the Beartooth, and 25 peaks that are higher than any of the ranges I listed. I suspect there are more.
And yet, sea shells are found on all of the peaks that tower 4 and 5 miles above sea level while none are found in the smaller ranges of the western United States. How do creationists explain this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Pressie, posted 10-03-2011 7:50 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Pressie, posted 10-04-2011 2:30 AM pandion has not replied
 Message 256 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2011 2:35 AM pandion has not replied
 Message 264 by roxrkool, posted 10-04-2011 5:05 PM pandion has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 255 of 343 (636108)
10-04-2011 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by pandion
10-04-2011 1:41 AM


Never seen any creationist anywhere not ignoring a question like this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by pandion, posted 10-04-2011 1:41 AM pandion has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024